Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 2680233" data-attributes="member: 8461">You really know how to make someone laugh.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Firstly, the fact that you don't have access to a product isn't my fault. Secondly, the flaw in your little "rule of thumb" is one that is inherently disproving; you don't need the book for that. Quite simply, you're saying that a +1 on a to hit roll is worth 2 hit points of damage: utter claptrap. By that standard, someone casting true strike on a fighter should have him dealing an extra 40 hit points of damage! Likewise, if he's under the effects of a bestow curse, that's going to make the attacks he lands do less damage. It boils down to you somehow applying the rule for a two-handed Power Attack to everything that adds to or subtracts from to hit rolls, and that makes me think you you don't know what you're talking about. Not coincidentally, it's the only thing that matches up with your little rule.And if you'd been more familiar with my previous posts, you'd know I said "Power Attack is a viable option." But it's not the be-all end-all you seem to think it is.The only complete nonsense is the quoted passage above. Having a character build that uses its bonuses to negate the penalties is called balance, as well as good planning.Asking at "what level" my character concept "will be superior to a straight up, no-nonsense, two-handed fighter? (Or, for that matter, a standard two-weapon fighter.)" is asking for a comparison, since you didn't specify exactly what sort of character your "no-nonsense" fighter was, except to imply he used one weapon only. If you couldn't understand my precise answer to your vague question, don't blame your failure of imagination on me.Only because you can't refute them.This pretty much highlights how badly you failed to understand what I was presenting. Of course the orc fighter had a Strength score 4 points higher than the human...they do get a racial Strength bonus, you know. The example thusly holds true wherever the two are likewise given an other-wise equal Strength; hence why I said "all things being equal". Next time, read the entire post.A superb example of trying to bury your lack of understanding through a fairly dry series of number-crunching, while not even addressing the original point. The fact is, your examples are utterly useless for the fact that you've completely unbalanced them by adding in various feats and changing the enhancement bonuses. You seem to lack the understanding that the examples only hold if we use the most equal comparisons possible. By changing how each character is created and the enhancement value of the weapons they're using, you've skewed the results in your favor.All in all, a futile (if amusing) attempt. I look forward to seeing what else you come up with.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification